[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 20, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4007-S4008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CHINA'S INCREASING GLOBAL INFLUENCE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I will deliver my third speech in 2 
weeks on the issue of China's increasing global influence. In these 
past speeches I addressed alarming trends such as China's proliferation 
problem, the distressing potential that the EU may drop their Arms 
embargo, and other events that have obvious impact on our national 
security.
  In 2000, Congress established the bipartisan U.S.-China Economic and 
Security Review Commission to collect and provide Congress with 
authoritative information on how our relationship with China affects 
our economy and industrial base, the impact of China's military and 
weapons proliferation on our security, and the status of our national 
interests in Asia. I fear that the Commission's findings have largely 
been ignored. I will continue to draw America's attention to the issue 
until we address it.
  As China becomes increasingly interdependent with its Asian 
neighbors, it is presenting its economic rise as a win-win situation 
for its trade and investment partners. According to political economist 
Francis Fukuyama:

       Over the long run, [China] wants to organize East Asia in a 
     way that puts them in the center of regional politics.

  The implications of this are disturbing. As the 2004 Commission 
report points out:

     . . . the United States' influence and vital long-term 
     interests in Asia are being challenged by China's robust 
     regional economic engagement and diplomacy, and that greater 
     attention must be paid to U.S. relations in the region.

  The Commission recommends that the U.S. increase visibility in Asia 
through initiatives that demonstrate our commitment to regional 
security. One avenue for this is the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 
forum--APEC.
  A careful look will show that China's regional outreach is at best 
inconsistent. It certainly has not offered win-win benefits to Taiwan 
or Hong Kong. As the tense situation in Taiwan continues to simmer, 
China's ongoing intimidation of this country seems to undermine the 
rosy picture they are trying to paint. A few weeks ago the Chinese 
Communist Party formalized a new stance on Taiwan. This is a total 
diversion from their old policy. The

[[Page S4008]]

following was approved by the National Peoples Congress:

       If possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be 
     completely exhausted, the state shall employ nonpeaceful 
     means and other necessary measure to protect China's 
     sovereignty and territorial integrity.

  This represents a change from earlier ambiguous language that would 
have allowed China flexibility to consider other options should 
conflict arise. As it is, China has taken away its own alternatives.
  China has also backed itself into a troubling situation with its 
skyrocketing demand for oil; since my floor speeches in 1999 its oil 
imports have doubled, and last year alone surged upwards of 57 percent. 
Some analysts project China's oil needs will double again by 2010 and 
it will use up its reserves within 14 years. China's alarming need for 
oil has caused it to look around the world for new sources, sources 
that are often problematic states with security concerns for the United 
States.
  In Venezuela, anti-American President Hugo Chavez announced a $3 
billion trade strategy with China, including provisions for oil and 
gas. This came on the heels of his statement, ``We have invaded the 
United States, [not with guns] but with our oil.''
  Beijing recently signed a $70 billion oil/gas deal with Iran, from 
whom it receives 11 percent of its oil imports. Naturally, China has 
come out firmly against the U.N. Security Council holding Iran 
economically accountable for its nuclear program.
  Likewise, in Sudan, China seeks to defuse or delay any U.N. sanctions 
against Khartoum. It hardly seems coincidence that 4 percent of its oil 
imports come from that conflict stricken country, a supply that China 
seems ready to protect at all costs.
  Keep in mind we are talking about the same area in northern Uganda 
and southern Sudan where they have the terrorist attacks that have 
consistently gone out, where they abduct these young children, train 
them to be soldiers, instruct them to kill their parents, and if they 
do not do it, they cut their arms off, their lips off, and their ears 
off. That makes no difference to China. If it means 4 percent of its 
oil imports potential in the future, they are willing to do it.
  The United States and the European Union have sanctioned Zimbabwe, 
hoping to pressure its corrupt regime into reforms. China, on the other 
hand, has boosted aid and investment, working to blunt the sanctions.
  The sources China has used to meet its oil needs and increase its 
world standing are clearly questionable. The Commission makes an 
unpopular but straightforward observation:

     . . . [China's] pursuit of oil diplomacy may support 
     objectives beyond just energy supply. Beijing's bilateral 
     arrangements with oil-rich Middle Eastern states also helped 
     create diplomatic and strategic alliances with countries that 
     were hostile to the United States. For example, with U.S. 
     interests precluded from entering Iran, China may hope to 
     achieve a long-term competitive advantage relative to the 
     United States. Over time, Beijing's relationship-building may 
     counter U.S. power and enhance Beijing's ability to influence 
     political and military outcomes. One of Beijing's stated 
     goals is to reduce what it considers U.S. superpower 
     dominance in favor of a multipolar global power structure in 
     which China attains superpower status on par with the United 
     States.

  And while the search for energy is not yet a zero-sum game, the way 
the U.S. and China acquire oil is strikingly different. James Caverly, 
of the U.S. Department of Energy states, ``The U.S. strategic framework 
makes certain that plenty of oil is available in the world market so 
that the price will remain low and the economy will benefit.'' China, 
in contrast, seeks to ``gain control of the oil at the source. 
Geopolitically, this could soon bring the United States and Chinese 
energy interests into conflict.'' I have a chart that shows the 
countries that China has been buying oil from. This is the most up-to 
date information available. What I would like to point out is how China 
is using whatever leverage it can to find new energy sources, 
particularly in Africa. If you add up these amounts, China is acquiring 
about one third of its oil from African countries like Angola, Sudan, 
Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Libya. Other countries China has 
begun seeking oil from are Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, and Guinea.
  I have had occasion to go there. And any of these countries that you 
go to, you see that China is giving them everything they want.
  I have been traveling to Africa for many years. I just got back from 
a trip through Tanzania, Ethiopia and Uganda. Chinese influence is 
everywhere. I see conference centers and sports stadiums being 
constructed, donated by the Chinese. China has been expanding its 
influence throughout Africa with projects like this. The one thing I 
keep hearing is, ``The U.S. tells you what you need, but China gives 
you what you want.'' Has China suddenly become compassionate and 
generous? No. One thing consistent with all of these countries where 
they are building these stadiums, sports complexes, and arenas, if you 
go to them, is they are places that the Chinese are depending on for 
their oil in the future. I think the fact these countries have large 
oil and mineral deposits is the reason for their generosity.

  Last year, China spent nearly $10 billion on African oil. As I said, 
this is nearly one third of its total crude oil imports. To gain access 
to these resources, China shows no qualms about catering to some of the 
worst governments. The fact is that China is ignoring western sanctions 
and redrawing the usual geopolitical map to help it level whatever 
advantages the U.S. may have.
  The U.S.-China Comission--again, talking about the Commission that 
spent 4 years looking at this--has been doing an outstanding job in 
translating how recent these events affect our national security. Their 
observations in the 2004 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review 
Commission report demand our attention.
  The Commission outlines how China's energy search has both economic 
and security concerns for the United States:

       China's rising energy demand has put added pressure on 
     global petroleum supplies and prices. Indeed, the recent 
     escalation in gasoline prices in the United States has been 
     attributed, in part, to the impact of China's growing 
     pressure on world oil supplies and the absence of any 
     mechanism in place to counter this pressure and maintain 
     stable prices for consumers . . . China's growing energy 
     needs, linked to its rapidly expanding economy, are creating 
     economic and security concerns for the United States. China's 
     energy security policies are driving it into bilateral 
     arrangements that undermine multilateral efforts to stabilize 
     oil supplies and prices, and in some cases may involve 
     dangerous weapons transfers.

  I plan on giving another speech highlighting the significance of 
these illegal weapons transfers, followed by a resolution to effect the 
Commission's recommendations. This is a critical issue and will become 
a greater threat as we continue to ignore it; I hope America is 
listening.
  I would like to say it goes far beyond that. When you have people 
like Chavez making statements that they would defeat America not with 
guns but with the economy, or with oil, we have a very serious problem.
  I was disturbed over the last few years with not just the nuclear 
capabilities that China has and is trading with other countries, such 
as North Korea and Iran, but also with their conventional weapons. It 
took a lot of courage back in 1998 for General John Jumper to stand up 
and say publicly that now the Russians have a better strike vehicle 
than we have in the United States--better than our F-15s and F-16s, 
speaking of the SU-30 and SU-31 series. Yet China purchased about 240 
of these vehicles. It is not just their nuclear and economic capability 
in trading with countries that are potentially dangerous to the United 
States but also their nuclear and conventional base.
  I will look forward to delivering a floor speech on China.

                          ____________________